Talk:Teeth (Lady Gaga song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FrB.TG (talk · contribs) 13:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed with the amount of content given that it's a non-single song. -- Frankie _talk 13:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I look forward to your review and addressing any concerns you may have. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine but I think you should include the overall reaction from commentators. If possible, try to add what the song is about, lyrically or analytically (though I doubt the latter is available for an article this short).
- I added that the song received a mixed reception from critics. I don't think we need to mention the various song descriptors or oral theme in the lead, especially since this is short a short article and these are mentioned in the first paragraph, immediately below the lead. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article. I don't think this should be an exception.

Genre not known?
- The article has descriptive words like "dancey", "gospel ode", "part country", "a little tribal", etc., but I added "Pop" to be more general. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time I see that articles tend to write the real names of writers which is Stefani Germanotta for Gaga. But I am sure you have something to defend it.
- Just following the same convention used at the parent (album) article: The Fame Monster. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to abbreviate sadomasochism as I don't see any subsequent use of it.
- Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Music Times needs to be wiki-linked in fifth line.
- Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"authorship, and ownership [of 'Teeth'] are all false and untrue" - I am not sure why is Teeth in single quotes when Wikipedia uses ".
- Quote within a quote means we use punctuation in this way, as far as I know and have seen. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad! I myself write it this way but it slipped out of my mind. -- Frankie _talk 07:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some reviews from some not-so-well-known sites. I wonder if it's okay for GA standard; personally it's okay for me as they are just reviews.

Any explanations on this?

Vulture, I believe is a news entertainment published under New York magazine so it needs to be in italics.
- Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Postmedia Network from ref 9 to maintain consistency.
- Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have got to say for this short but nice article. -- Frankie _talk 23:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time and assistance! Please let me know if any concerns still need to be addressed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]